Is the bible inerrant?

Faith & Science Conversation
226

It fascinates me that Hillel’s seems to have won the most favor and respect (even from Jesus, no less!), not because he was on the “correct” side while Shammai was “wrong” about everything; but instead Hillel gets the commendation of having better embodied wisdom because he apparently did the better job of not dismissing what his opponent taught. I.e. - he was better able to step outside of himself and into his opponent’s shoes to “steel man” his opponent’s positions. (My own choice of words there.) Apparently Shammai lacked or shunned that particular practice of trying to inhabit his opponent’s point of view. For my own part - I benefit from engaging in the practice of trying to “channel” the priorities and thoughts of people who I view as political adversaries. I have a friend or two with whom I can practice this - and they too can practice channeling my own sides concerns back to me and we can give feedback to each other on how we did. And we’re both wiser for it I think - but more importantly, it’s helped to seal our relationship as trusted friends with a confidence that our relationship is above and immune to the differences we can rehearse to each other.

It may not be directly answering your query about how to ‘teach from contradiction’, but here is one excerpt I’ll quote directly from the end of that chapter that I thought interesting regarding the whole Shammai vs. Hillel tussle.

Early followers of Jesus benefited from the more tolerant spirit of the Hillel rabbinic school. When members of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem wanted to kill Peter and John, Rabbi Gamaliel–grandson of Hillel–spoke up and said, “Keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you wil not be able to overthrow them–in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (Acts 5:38-39).

Later, Paul tells the Sanhedrin that he was brought up “at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law” (Acts 22:3). Paul’s early ardor for persecuting Christians suggests that he indeed was “educated strictly,” taught by Gamaliel but was drawn to the comparatively rigid theology of Shammai. After experiencing the grace of God in Jesus Christ, the apostle seems–like Jesus himself–to resonate with the spirit of Hillel.

1 Like
227

This was not a direct critique of Bird, or anyone else, just a principle.

If I am going to be judged (and I will eventually) it will be by my own actions and beliefs not any indoctrinated or insisted upon by Church, Biologos forum or even scripture .Ad homine has some interest but does not guarantee agreement.

Richard

228

I noticed the contrast as well, but haven’t felt the need to dig into. It is related I think to how Jesus summarized the law and how the NT says it’s impossible to love God and hate someone else. To those who are lead by the Spirit, there is no longer a need for the law. I probably butchered that.

Anyways, I am currently in a fascinating philosophical discussion with a heavily invested moral anti-realist. He has a YouTube channel and comes across as a very nice individual :sunglasses:

1 Like
229

… or how the OT talks about a day when God would write his law on the hearts of his people

1 Like
230

How is “The Bible is the sole ultimate arbiter/authority for doctrine.” (i.e., not equal to or below church councils or leaders) self-defeating?

231

As is meant by YEC organizations?

No – they definitely did not. Luther’s definition ignored historical problems, inconsistencies, and other errors because “they do not touch the heart of the Gospel”.

All the church Fathers read it that way – they just had an actual biblical understanding of “true” . . . which has nothing to do with science or even history.

Exactness was so important they copied what were obvious errors just as they received them – there are sections in the minor prophets where the Hebrew we have is gibberish. Which leads to this issue:

In sections such as I described above we definitely do not have “an accurate reproduction of the original autographs” unless you want to maintain that the writers set down incomprehensible messes of letters.

And the problem with your claim is that the author was not stating that as correct, he was stating that it is a position that is held by many, which is true.

I’ve read some of both, and when it comes down to the accuracy of the New Testament text they are actually in agreement; both tell us that we know the original with certainty for over 99% of the text. Ehrman’s problem is that he believed the common position described in the article as you quoted it and concluded that if we don’t have that 1% for certain then the Bible can’t be trusted.

Ehrman makes no such argument – he is, as he has said repeatedly, agnostic.

Whoa – if you got that from the article you need to go back and read it again slowly since it says no such thing!

How is describing what some people believe “conflating” anything? Olsen accurately portrays the situation when it comes to inerrancy.

Sorry but you can’t use an author’s source as confirmation that what the author wrote is correct.

The internal consistency of the scriptures does not indicate what you claim. The internal consistency has to do with message, not historicity or timeline (or science).

There’s a famous one that has all of seven words, and that’s (IIRC) counting both sides.

Something that should amaze anyone who stops to think about it is the fact that many scholars of the New Testament text know that text well enough that when presented with a fragment with maybe a dozen words on three lines they can tell right where that text is located in the writings!

2 Likes
232

Wallace recognizes that genealogies were edited for both theological and literary reasons.

You keep making that claim, but repeating it doesn’t make it hold up. You’re making claims that are not and cannot be supported by the text.

Which, BTW, Wallace agrees is quite unlikely; he notes that authors aimed to get the gist of what someone said, not the exact words, so that most likely none of what appears red in certain editions is actually what Jesus said word for word.

Yet you support the notion that the Holy Spirit controlled authors to make them write in modern literary genres instead of ancient ones.

That can’t be found in any text of the New Testament, it’s a doctrine that comes from forcing scripture to conform to humanism. The apostles never say anything about us doing anything in baptism, they only talk about what has been done to us.

Nothing He said implies anything of the sort; His statements acknowledge that some people thought they were not sinners. Both the prophets and the apostles insist that all have sinned.

1 Like
233

I’ve noted before that Jesus disagreed; by His own words all that is necessary is to recognize that one is “weary and heavy-burdened” and seek rest.

That reminds me so much of one of my professors; he would make statements that made the whole class do a double-take, without batting an eye (or slowing down).

Especially when one keeps in mind that God puts up with what He does not approve of in order to keep the program on track, something Jesus made explicit when He told them that the rules concerning divorce were given because of their obtuseness.

Bingo.

Besides being unbiblical as it is usually meant.

234

Based on my very limited understanding, I strongly reject the claim the Bible has nothing to do with history. It was written according to historical conventions at the time. And as Keener often says, ancient biographies written within living memory of the subject are within the realm of historical accuracy.

235

It is worth noting that professing the Creed using a singular “I believe” is a modern innovation; the original is Πιστεύομεν, “We believe/trust”.

It sort of amuses me that conservatives have picked up the originally liberal concept of all opinions being valid, so scholars can be easily dismissed. But that is contrary to the theme in the scriptures that one must study to become competent in them – and by Paul’s example that means other literature as well.

Inclusion of “the Prophets” here is instructive given how often we read them telling us that God “despises” many things He plainly commanded in the Torah. The Prophets expounded the principles the Law had been intended to teach, and that tells us something of what Jesus intends here.

That phrase would likely have been understood by His audience as referring to the establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth, which was seen generally as being only for the Jews.

This is a phrase that only Matthew uses, and books have been written trying to pin down what he meant by it. Oh – and in the Greek it’s plural, “the kingdom of the heavens”, which to me has a whole different flavor; the plural seems more expansive/inclusive.

236

The whole concept of Torah is an interesting one that is tough for Westerners to approach since for nearly two millennia we are accustomed to thinking of it as “law” rather than the more accurate “instruction”. “Law” suggests commands that cannot vary for any reason, whereas “instruction” recognizes that commands can change from time to time and place to place because they rest on an underlying principle, and it is the principle that counts.

1 Like
237

I do not see how you can claim such a thing. There is nothing in he text to imply that Jesus believed in original sin. In fact He repeatedly tells people “not to sin again” which would be impossible if sin is endemic and unavoidable…

For your statement to work Jesus would be claiming that those who think they do not sin do not need Him. Jesus was anything but obtuse. If he stated that there are righteous people for whom He did not come that there were righteous people. If He told people not to sin, then it must be possible for them to do so.

Richard

238

Babtism is an example demonstrating how verses in the biblical scriptures can be interpreted in different and conflicting ways and how the advocates of the conflicting interpretations can be very sure that their interpretation is the ‘only correct one’ :copyright:. Advocates of the other interpretations … well, anathema.

Who is correct is not the point here, and this is not the correct forum to argue about that. My point here is that an inerrant Bible is mentally tied to the idea of inerrant interpretation, at least in a loose sense. Inerrant scripture turns to flawed messages if our interpretations are wrong while a correct interpretation may turn even imperfect scriptures to a truthful message.

By the way, the denomination where I belong is among the very few where advocates of both main interpretations about baptism can be members in the same congregation. Due to historical reasons, the form of baptism was not put as a criterion for becoming a member of the church. Increased knowledge has lead to the dominance of the practice that we baptize believers but if someone is certain that her/his baptism as an infant was the one baptism mentioned in the Bible and creeds, (s)he can be a full member of the church.

I guess we all would have at least one deviating interpretation if we would go through all matters mentioned in the biblical scriptures, so we should beware of discrimination because of deviating interpretations, unless the behaviour of the person or deviating doctrine damages others. Narrow-minded orthodoxy may lead to a destructive dead end if the orthodoxy is built on any wrong interpretations.

2 Likes
239

You have hit the nail on the head. As Scripture itself shows that passages can be interpretted differently the question about a single understanding is soon answered. It cannot exist.

Richard

240

That is your interpretation which I can appreciate and sympathize with, but it is not my own. Some things are unmistakably true for me. Like the rational possibility of solipsism being tied to the fall.

241

Fair enough, but there is a difference between some things and all thing. Inerrancy is an absolute.

It would be unlikely if the truths you base your faith on were not considered unmistakable and true.

However, whether something has to be true for all is another matter.

Richard

242

That is not the definition of sola scripture I am accustomed to. It usually goes much further than mere doctrine. The Bible is the ultimate authority on everything it touches upon. But I’ll still take a swing on why I think even your statement is self defeating. Much of reasoning on why I reject SS applies to both.

  1. Sola scripture, like inerrancy, is not taught in the Bible. So this ultimate authority must rest on some other authority that is not in fact Biblical.

  2. The Bible itself nowhere lists what books should be included in the Bible. Thus, the authority for canonization must come from a non-biblical source.

Someone chose these books. The Bible doesn’t tell us which ones because these books make up the Bible. There were councils, debates and people who agreed and disagreed on many different books. Christians even have different canons today. I am told the Ethiopian church even has a larger New Testament (Catholics and Protestants share the same NT). So the Bible cannot and does not authenticate itself — and to do so would be circular anyways.

  1. The “Bible” as a concept” presumes canonization. Otherwise it consists of a collection of many dozens of discrete publications written over a thousand years by numerous authors—often separated as far geographically as they are chronologically. Imagine me and a group of friends go into my comic book collection and take a few copies of specific runs of Deadpool, Avengers, Superman, Buffy, The Walking Dead, X-Men, etc., and put them all together as a single book and say this is superhero canon and the sole authority by which all other stories must be judged. To
    be canonized means somebody determined what should make up the Bible. Otherwise there is no Bible. It is the Church that canonized the Bible. So if the Church can assemble scripture, why can it not maintain that authority moving forward? What ground is there for sola scripture with that knowledge?

  2. Jesus left apostles and a small church not a bible. As commissioned, the apostles (aside from Paul) left behind more and growing churches, not scripture.
    The Church members wrote the individual books of the Nee Testament (I largely reject traditional authorship). Remember, these were discrete publications sent to different communities at different times.
    In the face of many gospels and many spurious writings and writings they disagreed with, the Church then determined the canon.

The Bible did not produce the Church. The Church produced the Bible. The Church predates the New Testament and the Church magisterium assembled and authenticated the canon at various councils or synods. Scripture doesn’t exist without the Church or tradition.

  1. Canonization of the OT wasn’t even fully set at the time of Jesus. Jesus, Paul and early Christian’s used many traditions we now deem “rabbinic” or “extra-Biblical” in the same fashion they used ones we now deem “Biblical.” The Bible doesn’t set the canon, it doesn’t teach sola scripture and it doesn’t even distinguish between scripture and ancient rabbinic tradition as we do today.

Modern Christians touting sola scripture treat the Bible like a supermarket steak wrapped in cellophane, completely oblivious to its history and how it actually got there. It’s like they think that steak fell from heaven just like that. In the same way they imagine the Bible as having always existed as if it fell from heaven complete just for them. History disagrees. Church tradition and Scripture are inseparably intertwined.

1 Like
243

I agree with the copied text but think that you have misunderstood the basic idea behind the Sola Scriptura.

The canon (biblical scriptures) represents the apostolic teachings and understanding of the early church. The question about Sola Scriptura is not about a clash between a divine text and tradition, it deals with the difference between early and later teachings within the church.

How do we know that a teaching agrees with the teachings of the apostles and the early church? We can compare the current teaching with the teachings in the Bible. If there seems to be a disagreement, do we stick to the apostolic teachings as documented in the biblical scriptures, or do we obey the commands of the current rulers?

Sola Scriptura claims that we should stick to the apostolic teachings documented in the biblical scriptures and accepted by the early church, instead of believing and obeying the conflicting doctrines of the current rulers.

In the early church, the apostolic tradition was told both orally and through the writings we know as biblical scriptures. Oral and written tradition agreed. During the following centuries, new doctrines were added to the teaching of the church and some interpretations were modified, producing a rich tradition that diverged from the original, simpler apostolic tradition. During the reformation and thereafter, many thought that the current version of church tradition had stepped too far from the original apostolic tradition. Hence, Sola Scriptura.

2 Likes
244

Maybe we can’t know it with certainty. Maybe sola scripture is just a way of protecting us from our doctrinal fears. Or maybe we can just have faith or even ask the magisterium that determined which books belong in the Bible and represent our best access to the apostolic era. As I said, the Church predates the New Testament and is ultimately what created it and other works. Jesus left a Church, not a Bible.

Unfortunately, “what the Bible teaches” is often synonymous with “current teachings.” I’m sure neither Catholics or the 40,000 plus denominations of Protestants think their current beliefs are unbiblical. In fact, they are all using the Bible in precisely this way. The Catholic Church doesn’t disagree with the Bible so your definition of sola scripture makes it irrelevant. It’s us liberal, theistic evolutionists that have trouble with parts of scripture and will dare to outright dismiss them.

I’d also point out rarely ever works the way you describe. More often than not, current beliefs are read into the Bible. Issues like slavery and the role of women, the nature of Genesis 1-11, and changing Christian belief over time on these and many issues are quite obvious. The Bible says what various people want it to.

You are also assuming there is a specific and known understanding and interpretation of apostolic teaching we can all appeal to. If you were a Catholic I would agree with you. But if not, what we have is an army of sola scripture theologians thinking they get apostolic Christianity and doctrine right over and against their many peers who disagree with them.

The irony is strong here. Sola scripture is not taught in the Bible and it is an added tradition —in fact a very new tradition— created almost 1500 years into the Church’s existence. If that doesn’t set off alarm bells….

245

When the Reformation started, people like Luther wanted to reform the church, not create something totally novel. In that situation, all arguing people were members in the same church but they were supporting differing teachings. Whom should we trust in such a situation?

Luther and the other reformators lifted up the apostolic teachings of the early church, as documented in the canon. The other side appealed to the authority of the Pope and other rulers in the church. That was the situation where the principle of Sola Scriptura was lifted up.

I do not worship the Bible, for me it is not a divine text descended from heaven. The authority of the Bible comes from the fact that it is the most trusted source of what the apostles and the early church were teaching. If later additions or modifications are in conflict with the scriptures that the early church confirmed as authoritative, I rather believe the original version of the apostolic teaching than the current versions that seem to have stepped far from the original apostolic tradition.

The complicating factor is of course the challenge of correct interpretation of the scriptures. We should not believe whatever interpretation we hear, even if the Pope himself or an angel would speak. There is a need for a serious study of the scriptures to find out what was the original message of the apostles and the early church.

If someone can show me that the original apostolic teaching, as documented in the biblical scriptures, supports a doctrine, I can accept that no matter what is the denomination of those telling.

When you claim that the principle of Sola Scriptura was invented 1500 years into the Church’s existence, I remind you of the words of Paul in Galatians 1:7-9:
“7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”

4 Likes